Presentation given by Julie Phelps at the Inaugural BSI Leadership Institute on June 16, 2009.

1. The Institution as Learner: A Tale
of Institution Transformation
Dr. Julie Phelps
Project Director, Achieving the Dream &
Professor, Mathematics
Valencia Community College

2. Overview of Presentation
 Timing of Institutional Transformation
 Focus
 Engagement and Commitment
 Meaningful Data and Systemic Improvement

3. Valencia Community College located in Orlando, FL now has
four major campuses, two academic and administrative
centers, and two more major campuses in the planning stages.
Criminal Justice Institute
Osceola Campus
East Campus
Winter Park Campus Sand Lake Center West Campus

4. The Institution as Learner

5. AtD Opportunity
 Identify challenges
 Include students historically underserved
 Choose “fix” strategies & bring to scale
 Study implementation results
 Apply lessons toward further improvement
 Continue the cycle…

6. AtD Leverage
 External commitment
 Goals & time lines
 Progress reports
 Coaching guidance/encouragement
 Connection to community of learners
 Focus & discipline

7. Focus

8. What did we discover?
Valencia’s performance gaps:
 Between college-ready & underprepared
 Across racial and ethnic groups
 Between math & other disciplines

9. What approaches did we choose?
Strategies that are effective, ripe, scalable:
 Supplemental Learning
 Learning in Community (LinC)
 Student Life Skills course
All help build “connection and direction.”

10. Bring to Scale

11. Activity #1
 If you agree that focus is a helpful discipline
in this process, please jot down some steps
you have taken at your own institution in
order to focus your improvement efforts.

12. Engagement and Commitment

13. Institutional Shift to Broad Engagement
THEN NOW
Core
College Achieving
Work
the Dream

14. Leadership Team
 Student Affairs Vice President
 Academic Affairs Assistant Vice President
 Tenured Faculty Member
Our Philosophy: “Ownership” vs. “Buy-in” –
Our learning communities have the end
users’ fingerprints all over them.

15. Valencia AtD Coordinating Teams Consultants
Coordinating Teams
(Campus Based and Collegewide)
AtD Consultant Team
Philip Bishop, Mary Allen, Nick
Supplemental Learning Bekas, Sonya Joseph, John Stover, Paul
Shelby Fiorentino, Boris Nguyen, Flores, David Hosman, Michael
Damien Hammock, Albert Groccia, Shugg, Christy Cheney, Cali
Linda Hidek, Jennifer McCormick. Russell Coordinating
Campanella, Shelby Fiorentino, Barbara
Takashima, Roberta Brown & 2 SL leaders Team/Leadership Team Shell, Helen Clarke, Jeff Cornett, Roberta
Julie Phelps Brown, Kurt Ewen, and Tracy Harrison
Ann Puyana
Learning Communities Math and SLS Joyce Romano
and Interdisciplinary Courses
Christy Cheney, Philip Bishop, Mary West Campus Team
Allen, David Hosman, Terry Rafter- Jared Graber, Mildred Francechi, Lisa Armour, Kim
Carles, Mia Pierre, Sonya Joseph and Long, Russell Takashima, Boris Nguyen, David
all LinC faculty/staff Hosman, Claudia Genovese-Martinez, and Tyron Johnson
Student Success Expansion East Campus Team
Mary Allen and SLS teaching faculty Ruth Prather, Myrna Villanueva, Maryke Lee, Della
Paul, Michelle Foster, Paul Flores, Jennifer
McCormick, Terry Rafter-Carles, Amanda Saxman, and
Focus Group Faciliatators Linda Vance
Roberta Brown, Kurt Ewen, Celine Kavelac-
Miller, Philip Bishop, Nick Bekas, Allison Sloan, Maryke Winter Park Campus Team
Lee, Helen Clarke, Barbara Shell, and others Ruth Prather, Michele McArdle, Chris Borglum, Cheryl
Robinson, John Niss, Linda Hidek, and Damien Hammock
Community Focus Groups
Susan Kelley and others Osceola Campus Team
Silvia Zapico, Dale Husbands, Kevin Mulhulland, Melissa
Pedone, Chris Klinger, Albert Groccia, Elizabeth
SAS Implementation for AtD
Washington, Donna French, Shari Koopman, Teresa
Bill White, Jim Ferrari, David Colon, Juan
Nater, Lynn Paredes-Manfredi, Mia Pierre, David
Olivera, Roberta Brown, Daryl
Rogers, Leila Sission, John Tobia, and Ron Von Behren
Davis, Donna Koslowski, and Jeff Cornett
Data Team College Learning Council (Core
Roberta Brown, Jeff Cornett, Kurt Ewen, Nick
Bekas, Lisa Armour, Christy Cheney, Mary Team)
Allen, Daryl Davis, Maryke Lee, James Kaye Walter, Rose Watson, Joyce Romano, Silvia Zapico, Jared
May, Cheryl Robinson and Shelby Fiorentino Graber, Maryke Lee, Cheryl Robinson, Aida Diaz, Suzette Dohany, Tami
Rogers, Shelby Fiorentino, Brenda Martinez Britt, Bill White, Brian
Macon, Melody Boeringer-Hartnup, Richard Gair, George Rousch, Ruth
Prather, Julie Phelps, Kurt Ewen , Karen Borglum, and Kari

16. Campus Based Engagement and
Collegewide Reflection
 Communication
 Campus-based Leadership Team Meetings
 College-wide Sharing Session
 Website Development and Maintenance
 Regular Reports to Councils & Departments
 Planning

17. Activity #2
 Write down a few ways that you institution
has promoted broad engagement and
commitment.

18. Meaningful Data and
Systemic Improvement

19. Innovation Management System
Climate of
Innovation
Level I
1000’s of Level II “Eye for
opportunties 100 are Evidence”:
selected 10 Level III More rigorous
tried. supported
Maintain a for support at each level.
as Phase II
as Phase I
Research and Innovations.
Innovations. 1 or 2
Development are brought up
“Venture Capital
Component. “Angel Stage”
to scale and
Institutionalized.
Capital Pilot
Stage” Implementation
(Limited Scale)
Prototype
Level II Innovations Valencia’s challenge
must be scalable is in moving from
and must show Level II to Level III.
potential to bring
systemic change
and “business-changing
results.”
Standard of evidence increases at each level.

20. AtD Data Team Insights
 Composition of members
 Development of Data Review Model

21. From Data to Meaningful Information
Identify New Work
Intended Identify
Outcomes needed
Data Data Defining the Information
New / Changes
Collection Processing Message Sharing
Revised based on
Assessment reflection
Activity
Our Data Processing Model is part of an Institutional
Effectiveness process

22. AtD Data Team Insights
 Composition of members
 Development of Data Review Model
 Various levels of analysis:
Term-based strategy level
Two and Four Year Global Measures
Strategy Research Proposals
 From Snapshots to Trends

23. Term Based Data for Needed for
Adjustments per Term

24. Supplemental Learning Highlights
since implementation in Spring 2006
 Success Rates in Developmental Math Courses
 For students enrolled in SL section:
 + 2.4% for Fall SL sections
 + 5.4% for Spring SL sections
 With attendance in 1+ SL session:
 + 9.8% for Fall SL sections
 + 20.3% for Spring SL sections
 Student participation in SL sections (>33%)
 Avg. 45% participation from Fall SL students
 Avg. 49% participation from Spring SL students

25. Supplemental Learning: Spring 2008
Percentage of All enrolled students with a Grade of C or
Better in Developmental Mathematics Course by Ethnicity
80%
69% 70%
62% 60% 59%
60% 56% 55%
53%
46% 48% 47%
40% 34%
20%
0%
Afr. Am. Caucasian Hispanic
SL-Attended SL-Non-Attended SL-Overall Non-SL
attended non-attended SL course non-SL course % participation
Ethnicity % Success N % Success N % Success N % Success N
AA 62 113 34 148 46 261 48 911 43%
Cauc 69 208 53 251 60 459 56 1557 45%
Hisp 70 181 47 165 59 346 55 1204 52%
All 69 573 47 663 57 1236 54 4238 46%
*Courses: Pre-algebra, Beginning Algebra, Intermediate Algebra

26. Two to Four Year Global Examples

27. Fall Cohort Retention Rates
FTIC Degree-Seeking Students
100% Fall-Spring Retention
Fall-Fall Retention
90%
80.5% 81.6% 81.5%
78.6% 79.9% 79.2% 79.2% 79.7%
80% 76.9% 76.1% 76.7%
75.3%
70%
63.8%
61.3% 62.4%
59.6% 60.3%
58.2% 58.5% 58.7% 58.4%
60% 56.8% 56.4%
Retention Rate
55.3%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Fall Cohort to Spring/Fall the Following Year

28. Spring 2006 Cohort
Persistence
Term SL and/or LinC Persistence (N) Persistence (%) Total Enrolled
Spring 2006 to Fall No 596 53 1123
2006 Yes 119 61 195
Spring 2006 to Spring No 468 44 1063
2007 Yes 145 57 255
Spring 2006 to Fall No 344 34 1007
2007 Yes 150 48 311
Spring 2006 to Spring No 333 34 990
2008 Yes 170 52 328
Spring 2006 to Fall No 232 24 963
2008 Yes 131 37 355
Spring 2006 to Spring No 184 19 953
2009 Yes 126 35 365

29. AtD Data Team Insights
 Composition of members
 Development of Data Review Model
 Levels of analysis
 From Snapshots to Trends
 From “Data Driven” to “Data Informed”

30. Example of Research Plan for Each
Strategy

31. Statistically significant Reflection on the human
improvement in target impact in terms of the goals of
quantitative measures the initiative and the mission
of the institution
Meaningful
Improvement
A consideration of
student perception
Economic efficiency as it relates to
in relationship to A consideration of
benefit versus cost
difficulty of the task faculty perception
at hand as it relates to
benefit versus cost

32. Supplemental Learning (SL)
Course Success
 In each comparison, Fall, Spring and Summer:
 Success (A, B, or C) was higher for SL sections
 Unsuccess (D, F, or WF) and Withdrawal (W, or WP) were lower for
SL sections
 Fall Success rates were significantly different for SL sections (*p<.10) for
all ethnicities (N = 65 Instructors, N = 5157 students)
 African American students
 All courses: 10.36% higher (p=0.029)
 Developmental: 8.53% higher (*p=0.167)
 Gateway: 15.65% higher (p=0.019)
 Hispanic students
 All courses: 7.07% higher (p=0.007)
 Developmental: 7.59% higher (p=0.025)
 Gateway: 6.65% higher (p=0.099)
*With one exception.

33. Supplemental Learning Research
Student Focus Groups
• Overall, students described the SL experience as
positive, and felt that attending SL sessions helped their
academic performance
• Students who did not attend SL sessions gave two major
reasons:
– time of session conflicted with work or other courses
– felt confident in their own ability and did not need the help
• The following benefits of SL were reported:
– learning study skill strategies
– awareness of additional resources (CompHouse, SPA, etc.)
– increased comfort with in-class participation and instructor
interaction

34. AtD Data Team Insights
 Composition of members
 Development of Data Review Model
 Term-based strategy level and overall
strategy evaluation
 From Snapshots to Trends
 From “Data Driven” to “Data Informed”
 From “Culture of Evidence” to “Culture of
Inquiry”

35. Closing the Gaps
 Overall, success in the 6 Gateway courses
increased by 3% from 2004 to 2008.
 Success gaps between African American and
Caucasian students closed from 13.4% in 2004
to 3.6% in 2008.
 Success gaps between Hispanic students and
Caucasian students closed from 1.8% in 2004
to Hispanic students having higher success
rates than Caucasian students by 4% in 2008.

36. Overall Success Rate (Grades of A, B or C)
All Ethnicities Combined
100.0%
ENC1101
90.0%
80.0% POS2041
70.0%
MAC1105
67.9%
65.1% 64.6% 65.6%
60.0%
61.7% 62.6%
60.3% 60.3%
Success Rate
59.7%
MAT0012C
50.0%
40.0%
MAT0024C
30.0%
MAT1033C
20.0%
10.0%
Avg Success
Rate
0.0%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 F08
Academic Year

37. African American - Caucasian
Success Rate Gap by Course
Negative values mean African-Americans are not performing as well as Caucasians on average.
30.0%
ENC1101
20.0%
POS2041
10.0%
Difference in Success Rate
MAC1105
0.0%
MAT0012C
-10.0%
MAT0024C
-20.0%
MAT1033C
-30.0%
Average Total
Combined Gap
-40.0%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 FA08
Academic Year
37

38. Hispanic - Caucasian
Success Rate Gap by Course
Negative values mean Hispanics are not performing as well as Caucasians on average.
30.0%
ENC1101
20.0%
POS2041
Difference in Success Rate
10.0% MAC1105
0.0% MAT0012C
MAT0024C
-10.0%
MAT1033C
-20.0%
Average Total
Combined Gap
-30.0%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 FA08
Academic Year
38

39. Activity #3
 What questions do you have for me?

40. Contact Information
Dr. Julie Phelps
Project Director, Achieving the Dream (AtD) &
Professor, Mathematics
Email: jphelps@valenciacc.edu
 AtD web site:
http://www.valenciacc.edu/dream/
 National AtD web site:
http://www.achievingthedream.org